My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/16/1997 MASHPEE COMMONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes
>
12/16/1997 MASHPEE COMMONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2018 5:28:09 PM
Creation date
5/9/2018 11:50:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
MASHPEE COMMONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/16/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
goals of Mashpee Commons and the Committeefs concern to provide <br /> protection for the Town. <br /> Nor. Storrs clarified that if the down-side in the oTJM is <br /> so low as to make them unrealistic from a financial feasibility <br /> standpoint, perhaps the number is too low- -it will Dever happen. <br /> He suggested the Committee focus on not only the number of units, <br /> but the type of units as well . <br /> There was discussion regarding a comparison of the results <br /> between the two reports at this point: Mr. Storrs stated there <br /> is a difference of two 2 numbers regarding the Apartment <br /> (rental apartments and apartments over retail) categories . Mr. <br /> Brais reported the v to be unclear, and that he had assigned <br /> a certain category of the apartments into the rental category <br /> apartment over retail . <br /> Mr. Storrs stated the one hundred (loo) units in Mashpee <br /> Commons is calculated within the five hundred (500) number. The <br /> OTJM indicates ten 10 apartments over retail, thirteen 1 <br /> units currently exist in Mashpee Commons 11-B. He suggested a <br /> commonality between the two numbers be reached. It was agreed <br /> upon by all parties to use the word, "Apartments" for clarity. <br /> Mr. Fudal.a recalled that in certain areas of the project, <br /> apartment buildings were proposed, which do not appear to be <br /> represented in the numbers . He suggested these numbers would <br /> have to be added to the one hundred (100) . He feels more <br /> apartments overall should be discussed. <br /> Mr. Storrs noted the difference between condominium and town <br /> house groupings to be v-eighty (80) ; oTJM-s ity (60) , which <br /> would average out to seventy (70) . Mr. Storrs did register a <br /> concern with regard to the numbers for low-range single family <br /> v-ninety three and oTJM one hundred eighty-five (185) . <br /> This being a large difference between the two studies, he <br /> suggested this number~ be articulated/justified at a future date. <br /> Mr. Brais determined the numbers reflect the price and size. <br /> Mr. Storrs continued by stating an agreement would have to <br /> be reached regarding the percentage of units/type of units. It <br /> is his opinion that few units would be built at Three Hundred <br /> Fifty ($350 . 00) Dollar rental price. of the one hundred tern <br /> (110) apartments, a minor~ percentage will be in the $350 . 00 <br /> range. Mr. Fudala stated this would be the ,ideal place to <br /> discuss the tern (10%) percent affordable units. <br /> Mr. Storrs made a similar statement regarding the <br /> combination of condominiums and town houses; to assign a range by <br /> type, prior to the fiscal impact study moving forward. <br /> Mr. Storrs raised the point that the single family range of <br /> -6- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.